Ruthenberg v. United States, 245 U.S. 480 (1918)

Ruthenberg v. United States

No. 656

Argued December 13, 14, 1917
Decided January 14, 1918
245 U.S. 480

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

As to the constitutionality of the Selective Draft Law, the case is ruled by the Selective Draft Law Cases, ante,366.

No infraction of constitutional or statutory right is predicable of the fact that the indictment and conviction of a socialist are returned by grand and petit juries composed exclusively of members of other political parties and property owners.

Upon a criminal trial of defendants who are socialists, it is not error for the district court to refuse them permission to ask the jurors whether they distinguish between socialists and anarchists.

The Sixth Amendment, both by its plain text and as construed contemporaneously by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and continuously by legislative and judicial practice (Rev.Stats., § 802; Jud.Code, § 277), permits the drawing of a jury from a part of the district in criminal cases -- in this case, from a division.

A sworn charge previously made is not essential to the validity of an indictment.

By § 5 of the Selective Draft Law, all male persons between the ages of 21 and 30, both inclusive (with certain exceptions) must register. In an indictment under it for failure to register and for aiding, abetting, etc., such failure, it is sufficient therefore to allege that the delinquent was a male person between those ages, and not necessary to allege that he was a citizen of the United States, or a person, not an alien enemy, who had declared his intention to become such citizen, since these latter matters go only to the liability to military duty under the act, and not to the duty to register.

An indictment charging one person with the direct commission of the criminal act and others with aiding, abetting, counseling, commanding, and inducing it charges but one offense against all, since, by § 332 of the Criminal Code, all are principals.

By § 332 of the Criminal Code, charging a defendant as an aider and abettor of the direct criminal act states the offense against him as principal, though the offense be a misdemeanor, and though at common law there could be no accessory to a misdemeanor.

Affirmed.

The case is stated in the opinion.