Supreme Court of the United States, 1962

Silber v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided June 25, 1962 · Frankfurter, White, Clark, Russell

370 U.S. 717; 82 S. Ct. 1287; 8 L. Ed. 2d 798; 1962 U.S. LEXIS 853 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Victor Rabinowitz argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Leonard B. Boudin., Bruce J. Terris argued the cause for the United States. On the briefs were Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Yeagley, George B. Searls and Kevin T. Maroney.

Cases that cite this one

189 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

United States v. Nancy Mageno (9th Cir. 2014)
United States v. Marion Promise, A/K/A Mario,defendant-Appellant (4th Cir. 2001)
United States v. Craig Michael Coscarelli, Also Known as John Coscarelli (5th Cir. 1997)
United States v. Van Smith (D.C. Cir. 2008)
United States v. Delgado (5th Cir. 2012)
United States v. Daphne W. Essex (D.C. Cir. 1984)
United States v. Miranda (5th Cir. 2001)
United States v. Cotton (4th Cir. 2001)
State v. Taylor (Minn. 1978)
United States v. Summerour (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1968)
United States v. Delgado (5th Cir. 2011)
United States v. Drapeau (8th Cir. 2011)
State v. Ramey (Minn. 2006)
United States of America v. Juan Adrian Gonzalez (5th Cir. 2001)
Banks v. Horn (3d Cir. 2001)
State v. Smith (N.D. 1999)
United States v. Kelly J. Jackson (7th Cir. 1994)
State v. Adkisson (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)
Hough v. Leonard (Okla. 1993)
United States v. Dean A. Lambey (4th Cir. 1992)
United States v. Joan McCoy (6th Cir. 1989)
State v. Baker (S.D. 1989)
State v. Jones (S.D. 1987)
People v. Eddington (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)
United States v. Timothy McKinney (9th Cir. 1983)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment is reversed. Russell v. United States, 369 U. S. 749. The indictment upon which the petitioner was tried was identical to those held defective in Russell. The petitioner’s timely motion to dismiss the indictment, made in accord with Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 12 (b)(2), was erroneously denied by the District Court.

Although the trial court squarely considered and decided the issue raised by the motion to dismiss, it was apparently not presented to the Court of Appeals and was not briefed or argued in this Court. While ordinarily we do not take note of errors not called to the attention of the Court of Appeals nor properly raised here, that rule *718 is not without exception. The Court has “the power to notice a ‘plain error’ though it is not assigned or specified,” Brotherhood of Carpenters v. United States, 330 U. S. 395, 412. * “In exceptional circumstances, especially in criminal cases, appellate courts, in the public interest, may, of their own motion, notice errors to which no exception has been taken, if the errors are obvious, or if they otherwise seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Atkinson, 297 U. S. 157, 160. Our own rules provide that “the court, at its option, may notice a plain error not presented.” Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, Rule 40 (1) (d)(2). See also Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 52 (b).

Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Mr. Justice White took no part in the decision of this case. Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Russell v. United States, 369 U. S. 749, 779, 781.

See Brasfield v. United States, 272 U. S. 448, 450; Mahler v. Eby, 264 U. S. 32, 45; Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349, 362. See also Kessler v. Strecker, 307 U. S. 22, 34.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.