Supreme Court of the United States · 1952 · Federal Courts
Federal Courtscertiorariper curiamconfession of errorreversalsearch and seizureunreasonable search and seizurenew trial
Facts
The controlling claim was that evidence had been obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure and that admitting that evidence vitiated the convictions. Resolving that claim would have required the Court to address conflicting views about the facts and the inferences to be drawn from them. The Solicitor General confessed error and asked the Court to reverse the judgment as to all petitioners. The Court noted that reversal on that basis would leave open the possibility of a new trial.
Issue
Whether the Supreme Court should reverse the convictions where the controlling challenge alleged unreasonable search and seizure, factual disputes and competing inferences remained unresolved, and the Solicitor General confessed error and requested reversal as to all petitioners.
Rule
Where the Solicitor General confesses error and accepting that confession in the particular case would not involve establishing any precedent, the Court may reverse the judgment and leave open the possibility of a new trial.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a criminal case from Phoenix, four defendants petition the Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit affirms their convictions. Their principal claim is that warehouse records were admitted after an allegedly unlawful search, but the record contains sharply conflicting accounts about where the records were found and what the officers observed. The Solicitor General files a brief confessing error and asks the Court to reverse as to all defendants, expressly noting that reversal would permit retrial.
Under the majority opinion's approach, what is the Supreme Court most justified in doing?
Explanation. The majority approved reversal where the controlling claim would require resolving conflicting facts and competing inferences, the Solicitor General confessed error, and accepting that confession in the particular case would not establish precedent. The Court may reverse as to all petitioners and leave open the way for a new trial.