Skip to content


Marder Vs. Massachusetts - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number377 U.S. 407
AppellantMarder
RespondentMassachusetts
Excerpt:
.....court of massachusetts, suffolk county appeal dismissed for want of substantial federal question. reported below: see 346 mass. 408, 193 n.e.2d 695. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. mr. justice goldberg, with whom mr. justice douglas joins, dissenting. this appeal raises the question of whether a person charged with a traffic violation (or presumably any other criminal offense) may be forced by a statute, general laws of mass. c. 90, §§ 20 and 20a, to choose between foregoing a trial by pleading guilty and paying a small fine, or going to trial and thereby exposing himself to the possibility of a greater punishment if found guilty. i express no view.....
Judgment:
Marder v. Massachusetts - 377 U.S. 407 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court Marder v. Massachusetts, 377 U.S. 407 (1964)

Marder v. Massachusetts

No. 819

Decided June 1, 1964

377 U.S. 407

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

MASSACHUSETTS, SUFFOLK COUNTY

Appeal dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Reported below: see 346 Mass. 408, 193 N.E.2d 695.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS joins, dissenting.

This appeal raises the question of whether a person charged with a traffic violation (or presumably any other criminal offense) may be forced by a statute, General Laws of Mass. c. 90, §§ 20 and 20A, to choose between foregoing a trial by pleading guilty and paying a small fine, or going to trial and thereby exposing himself to the possibility of a greater punishment if found guilty. I express no view on the merits of this question. But I would note probable jurisdiction, since the issue, in my view, presents a substantial federal question, and since I am not convinced that the generally sound advice to "pay the two dollars" necessarily reflects a constitutionally permissible requirement.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //