CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-DUE PROCESS OF LAW-FREEDOM OF THE PRESS TO CRITICIZE THE JUDICIARY-CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST

Authors

Merrill N. Johnson, University of Michigan Law School

Abstract

The editor and publisher of the Miami Herald published two editorials and a cartoon which inaccurately portrayed the local circuit court as willing to "accept, even go out to find, every possible technicality of the law to protect the defendant, to block, thwart, hinder, embarass and nullify prosecution" in certain criminal cases then before the court. They were cited in contempt of the circuit court for tending to obstruct and interfere with the impartial administration of justice. Found guilty of the charges, the petitioners appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which affirmed the decision declaring that the object of the publications was "to abase and destroy the efficiency of the court." On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, held, reversed. The publications did not constitute a clear and present danger to the fair administration of justice. Justice Reed delivered the opinion of the Court; Justices Frankfurter, Murphy, and Rutledge concurred in the result but delivered separate opinions. Pennekamp v. Florida, (U.S. 1946) 66 S. Ct. 1029.

Recommended Citation

Merrill N. Johnson, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-DUE PROCESS OF LAW-FREEDOM OF THE PRESS TO CRITICIZE THE JUDICIARY-CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST, 45 Mich. L. Rev. 513 (1947).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol45/iss4/7