The 14 petitioners, leaders of the Communist Party in California, were indicted in 1951 in a Federal District Court under § 3 of the Smith Act and 18 U.S.C. §
371 for conspiring (1) to advocate and teach the duty and necessity of overthrowing the Government of the United States by force and violence, and (2) to
organize, as the Communist Party of the United States, a society of persons who so advocate and teach, all with the intent of causing the overthrow of the
Government by force and violence as speedily as circumstances would permit. The indictment charged that the conspiracy originated in 1940 and continued
down to the date of the indictment, and that, in carrying it out, petitioners and their coconspirators would (a) become members and officers of the Communist
Party, with knowledge of its unlawful purposes, and assume leadership in carrying out its policies and activities, (b) cause to be organized units of the Party in
California and elsewhere, (c) write and publish articles on such advocacy and teaching, (d) conduct schools for the indoctrination of Party members in such
advocacy and teaching, and (e) recruit new Party members, particularly from among persons employed in the key industries of the Nation. It also alleged 23
overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. Petitioners were convicted after a jury trial, and their convictions were sustained by the Court of Appeals. Held: The
convictions are reversed, and the cause is remanded to the District Court with directions to enter judgments of acquittal as to five of the petitioners and to grant a
new trial as to the others. Pp. 300-338 . 1. Since the Communist Party came into being in 1945, and the indictment was not returned until 1951, the three-year
statute of limitations had run on the "organizing" charge, and required the withdrawal of that part of the indictment from the jury's consideration. Pp. 303-312 .
[p*299] (a) Applying the rule that criminal statutes are to be construed strictly, the word "organize," as used in the Smith Act, is construed as referring only to
acts entering into the creation of a new organization, and not to acts thereafter performed in carrying on its activities, even though the latter may loosely be
termed "organizational." Pp. 303-311. (b) The trial court's mistaken construction of the word "organize" was not harmless error; the circumstances are such as to
call for application of the rule which requires a verdict to be set aside where it is supportable on one ground, but not another, and it is impossible to tell which
ground the jury selected. Pp. 311-312 . 2. The Smith Act does not prohibit advocacy and teaching of forcible overthrow of the Government as an abstract
principle, divorced from any effort to instigate action to that end; the trial court's charge to the jury furnished wholly inadequate guidance on this central point in
the case, and the conviction cannot be allowed to stand. Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 , distinguished. Pp. 312-327 . 3. The evidence against five of the
petitioners is so clearly insufficient that their acquittal should be ordered, but that as to the others is such as not to justify closing the way to their retrial. Pp.
327-334 . 4. Determinations favorable to petitioner Schneiderman made by this Court in Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, a denaturalization
proceeding in which he was the prevailing party, are not conclusive in this proceeding under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, and he is not entitled to a
judgment of acquittal on that ground. Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Institute, 333 U.S. 683. Pp. 335-338 . 225 F.2d 146, reversed and remanded.
Back to First Amendment Surpreme Court Cases List