SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/102520 |
Court | US Supreme Court |
Decided On | Jun-29-1970 |
Case Number | 399 U.S. 508 |
Appellant | Morris |
Respondent | Schoonfield |
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context}
//highest occurence of word in the judgement
echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' )include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]morris v. schoonfield - 399 u.s. 508 (1970) u.s. supreme court morris v. schoonfield, 399 u.s. 508 (1970) morris v. schoonfield no. 782 argued april 22, 1970 decided june 29, 1970 399 u.s. 508 appeal from the united states district court for the district of maryland syllabus case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening maryland legislation and decision in williams v. illinois, ante, p. 399 u. s. 235 . 301 f.supp. 158, vacated and remanded. per curiam. we noted probable jurisdiction [ footnote 1 ] and set the case for oral argument with williams v. illinois, ante, p. 399 u. s. 235 , decided today. however, maryland has recently enacted legislation [ .....Code Context}
//highest occurence of word in the judgement
echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' )include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> No. 782 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> ', (int) 7 => ' <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> ', (int) 8 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . ', (int) 10 => ' <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> PER CURIAM. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> ', (int) 13 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ', (int) 14 => ' <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> ', (int) 16 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] ', (int) 17 => ' <p> 397 U.S. 960. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] ', (int) 19 => ' <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). ', (int) 20 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. ', (int) 21 => ' <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. ', (int) 22 => ' <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. ', (int) 23 => ' <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. ', (int) 24 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 0include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Morris v. Schoonfield
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> No. 782 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> ', (int) 7 => ' <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> ', (int) 8 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . ', (int) 10 => ' <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> PER CURIAM. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> ', (int) 13 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ', (int) 14 => ' <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> ', (int) 16 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] ', (int) 17 => ' <p> 397 U.S. 960. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] ', (int) 19 => ' <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). ', (int) 20 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. ', (int) 21 => ' <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. ', (int) 22 => ' <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. ', (int) 23 => ' <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. ', (int) 24 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 1include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
No. 782
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> No. 782 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> ', (int) 7 => ' <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> ', (int) 8 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . ', (int) 10 => ' <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> PER CURIAM. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> ', (int) 13 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ', (int) 14 => ' <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> ', (int) 16 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] ', (int) 17 => ' <p> 397 U.S. 960. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] ', (int) 19 => ' <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). ', (int) 20 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. ', (int) 21 => ' <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. ', (int) 22 => ' <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. ', (int) 23 => ' <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. ', (int) 24 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 2include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Argued April 22, 1970
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> No. 782 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> ', (int) 7 => ' <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> ', (int) 8 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . ', (int) 10 => ' <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> PER CURIAM. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> ', (int) 13 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ', (int) 14 => ' <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> ', (int) 16 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] ', (int) 17 => ' <p> 397 U.S. 960. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] ', (int) 19 => ' <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). ', (int) 20 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. ', (int) 21 => ' <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. ', (int) 22 => ' <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. ', (int) 23 => ' <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. ', (int) 24 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 3include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Decided June 29, 1970
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> No. 782 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> ', (int) 7 => ' <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> ', (int) 8 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . ', (int) 10 => ' <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> PER CURIAM. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> ', (int) 13 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ', (int) 14 => ' <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> ', (int) 16 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] ', (int) 17 => ' <p> 397 U.S. 960. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] ', (int) 19 => ' <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). ', (int) 20 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. ', (int) 21 => ' <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. ', (int) 22 => ' <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. ', (int) 23 => ' <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. ', (int) 24 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 4include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
399 U.S. 508
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> No. 782 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> ', (int) 7 => ' <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> ', (int) 8 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . ', (int) 10 => ' <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> PER CURIAM. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> ', (int) 13 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ', (int) 14 => ' <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> ', (int) 16 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] ', (int) 17 => ' <p> 397 U.S. 960. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] ', (int) 19 => ' <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). ', (int) 20 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. ', (int) 21 => ' <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. ', (int) 22 => ' <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. ', (int) 23 => ' <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. ', (int) 24 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 5include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> No. 782 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> ', (int) 7 => ' <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> ', (int) 8 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . ', (int) 10 => ' <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> PER CURIAM. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> ', (int) 13 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ', (int) 14 => ' <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> ', (int) 16 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] ', (int) 17 => ' <p> 397 U.S. 960. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] ', (int) 19 => ' <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). ', (int) 20 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. ', (int) 21 => ' <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. ', (int) 22 => ' <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. ', (int) 23 => ' <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. ', (int) 24 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 6include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> No. 782 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> ', (int) 7 => ' <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> ', (int) 8 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . ', (int) 10 => ' <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> PER CURIAM. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> ', (int) 13 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ', (int) 14 => ' <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> ', (int) 16 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] ', (int) 17 => ' <p> 397 U.S. 960. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] ', (int) 19 => ' <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). ', (int) 20 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. ', (int) 21 => ' <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. ', (int) 22 => ' <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. ', (int) 23 => ' <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. ', (int) 24 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 7include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> No. 782 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> ', (int) 7 => ' <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> ', (int) 8 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . ', (int) 10 => ' <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> PER CURIAM. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> ', (int) 13 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ', (int) 14 => ' <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> ', (int) 16 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] ', (int) 17 => ' <p> 397 U.S. 960. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] ', (int) 19 => ' <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). ', (int) 20 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. ', (int) 21 => ' <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. ', (int) 22 => ' <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. ', (int) 23 => ' <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. ', (int) 24 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 8include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Syllabus
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> No. 782 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> ', (int) 7 => ' <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> ', (int) 8 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . ', (int) 10 => ' <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> PER CURIAM. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> ', (int) 13 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ', (int) 14 => ' <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> ', (int) 16 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] ', (int) 17 => ' <p> 397 U.S. 960. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] ', (int) 19 => ' <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). ', (int) 20 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. ', (int) 21 => ' <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. ', (int) 22 => ' <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. ', (int) 23 => ' <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. ', (int) 24 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 9include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in Williams v. Illinois, ante, p. 399 U. S. 235 .
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> No. 782 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> ', (int) 7 => ' <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> ', (int) 8 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . ', (int) 10 => ' <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> PER CURIAM. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> ', (int) 13 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ', (int) 14 => ' <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> ', (int) 16 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] ', (int) 17 => ' <p> 397 U.S. 960. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] ', (int) 19 => ' <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). ', (int) 20 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. ', (int) 21 => ' <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. ', (int) 22 => ' <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. ', (int) 23 => ' <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. ', (int) 24 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 10include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> No. 782 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> ', (int) 7 => ' <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> ', (int) 8 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . ', (int) 10 => ' <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> PER CURIAM. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> ', (int) 13 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ', (int) 14 => ' <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> ', (int) 16 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] ', (int) 17 => ' <p> 397 U.S. 960. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] ', (int) 19 => ' <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). ', (int) 20 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. ', (int) 21 => ' <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. ', (int) 22 => ' <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. ', (int) 23 => ' <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. ', (int) 24 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 11include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
PER CURIAM.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> No. 782 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> ', (int) 7 => ' <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> ', (int) 8 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . ', (int) 10 => ' <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> PER CURIAM. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> ', (int) 13 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ', (int) 14 => ' <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> ', (int) 16 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] ', (int) 17 => ' <p> 397 U.S. 960. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] ', (int) 19 => ' <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). ', (int) 20 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. ', (int) 21 => ' <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. ', (int) 22 => ' <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. ', (int) 23 => ' <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. ', (int) 24 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 12include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
We noted probable jurisdiction [ Footnote 1 ] and set the case for oral argument with Williams v. Illinois, ante, p. 399 U. S. 235 , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ Footnote 2 ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in Williams, that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in Williams v. Illinois, supra.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> No. 782 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> ', (int) 7 => ' <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> ', (int) 8 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . ', (int) 10 => ' <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> PER CURIAM. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> ', (int) 13 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ', (int) 14 => ' <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> ', (int) 16 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] ', (int) 17 => ' <p> 397 U.S. 960. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] ', (int) 19 => ' <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). ', (int) 20 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. ', (int) 21 => ' <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. ', (int) 22 => ' <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. ', (int) 23 => ' <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. ', (int) 24 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 13include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> No. 782 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> ', (int) 7 => ' <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> ', (int) 8 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . ', (int) 10 => ' <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> PER CURIAM. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> ', (int) 13 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ', (int) 14 => ' <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> ', (int) 16 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] ', (int) 17 => ' <p> 397 U.S. 960. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] ', (int) 19 => ' <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). ', (int) 20 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. ', (int) 21 => ' <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. ', (int) 22 => ' <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. ', (int) 23 => ' <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. ', (int) 24 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 14include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> No. 782 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> ', (int) 7 => ' <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> ', (int) 8 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . ', (int) 10 => ' <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> PER CURIAM. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> ', (int) 13 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ', (int) 14 => ' <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> ', (int) 16 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] ', (int) 17 => ' <p> 397 U.S. 960. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] ', (int) 19 => ' <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). ', (int) 20 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. ', (int) 21 => ' <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. ', (int) 22 => ' <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. ', (int) 23 => ' <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. ', (int) 24 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 15include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> No. 782 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> ', (int) 7 => ' <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> ', (int) 8 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . ', (int) 10 => ' <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> PER CURIAM. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> ', (int) 13 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ', (int) 14 => ' <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> ', (int) 16 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] ', (int) 17 => ' <p> 397 U.S. 960. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] ', (int) 19 => ' <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). ', (int) 20 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. ', (int) 21 => ' <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. ', (int) 22 => ' <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. ', (int) 23 => ' <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. ', (int) 24 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 16include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
[ Footnote 1 ]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> No. 782 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> ', (int) 7 => ' <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> ', (int) 8 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . ', (int) 10 => ' <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> PER CURIAM. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> ', (int) 13 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ', (int) 14 => ' <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> ', (int) 16 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] ', (int) 17 => ' <p> 397 U.S. 960. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] ', (int) 19 => ' <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). ', (int) 20 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. ', (int) 21 => ' <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. ', (int) 22 => ' <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. ', (int) 23 => ' <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. ', (int) 24 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 17include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
397 U.S. 960.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> No. 782 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> ', (int) 7 => ' <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> ', (int) 8 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . ', (int) 10 => ' <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> PER CURIAM. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> ', (int) 13 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ', (int) 14 => ' <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> ', (int) 16 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] ', (int) 17 => ' <p> 397 U.S. 960. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] ', (int) 19 => ' <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). ', (int) 20 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. ', (int) 21 => ' <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. ', (int) 22 => ' <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. ', (int) 23 => ' <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. ', (int) 24 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 18include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
[ Footnote 2 ]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> No. 782 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> ', (int) 7 => ' <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> ', (int) 8 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . ', (int) 10 => ' <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> PER CURIAM. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> ', (int) 13 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ', (int) 14 => ' <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> ', (int) 16 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] ', (int) 17 => ' <p> 397 U.S. 960. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] ', (int) 19 => ' <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). ', (int) 20 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. ', (int) 21 => ' <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. ', (int) 22 => ' <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. ', (int) 23 => ' <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. ', (int) 24 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 19include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970).
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> No. 782 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> ', (int) 7 => ' <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> ', (int) 8 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . ', (int) 10 => ' <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> PER CURIAM. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> ', (int) 13 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ', (int) 14 => ' <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> ', (int) 16 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] ', (int) 17 => ' <p> 397 U.S. 960. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] ', (int) 19 => ' <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). ', (int) 20 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. ', (int) 21 => ' <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. ', (int) 22 => ' <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. ', (int) 23 => ' <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. ', (int) 24 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 20include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> No. 782 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> ', (int) 7 => ' <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> ', (int) 8 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . ', (int) 10 => ' <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> PER CURIAM. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> ', (int) 13 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ', (int) 14 => ' <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> ', (int) 16 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] ', (int) 17 => ' <p> 397 U.S. 960. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] ', (int) 19 => ' <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). ', (int) 20 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. ', (int) 21 => ' <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. ', (int) 22 => ' <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. ', (int) 23 => ' <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. ', (int) 24 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 21include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in Williams v. Illinois, ante, p. 399 U. S. 235 , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> No. 782 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> ', (int) 7 => ' <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> ', (int) 8 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . ', (int) 10 => ' <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> PER CURIAM. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> ', (int) 13 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ', (int) 14 => ' <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> ', (int) 16 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] ', (int) 17 => ' <p> 397 U.S. 960. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] ', (int) 19 => ' <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). ', (int) 20 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. ', (int) 21 => ' <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. ', (int) 22 => ' <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. ', (int) 23 => ' <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. ', (int) 24 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 22include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in Williams also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> No. 782 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> ', (int) 7 => ' <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> ', (int) 8 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . ', (int) 10 => ' <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> PER CURIAM. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> ', (int) 13 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ', (int) 14 => ' <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> ', (int) 16 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] ', (int) 17 => ' <p> 397 U.S. 960. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] ', (int) 19 => ' <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). ', (int) 20 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. ', (int) 21 => ' <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. ', (int) 22 => ' <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. ', (int) 23 => ' <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. ', (int) 24 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 23include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
As I understand it, Williams v. Illinois does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But Williams means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a href="#F1" id="T1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a href="#F2" id="T2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="509"> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a href="#T1" id="F1"> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a href="#T2" id="F2"> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a href="/case/102515/williams-vs-illinois"> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'morris-vs-schoonfield', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Morris Vs Schoonfield - Citation 102520 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '102520', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '399 U.S. 508', 'appellant' => 'Morris', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Morris Vs. Schoonfield', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1970-06-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> </p> <p> <b> No. 782 </b> </p> <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> </p> <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . </p> <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. </p> <p> PER CURIAM. </p> <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. </p> <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] </p> <p> 397 U.S. 960. </p> <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] </p> <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. </p> <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. </p> <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. </p> <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Schoonfield', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/399/508/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'morris-vs-schoonfield' $args = array( (int) 0 => '102520', (int) 1 => 'morris-vs-schoonfield' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/102520/morris-vs-schoonfield' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jun', (int) 1 => '29', (int) 2 => '1970' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Morris v. Schoonfield - 399 U.S. 508 (1970) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508 (1970) </span> <p> <b> Morris v. Schoonfield </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> No. 782 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> Argued April 22, 1970 </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <b> Decided June 29, 1970 </b> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <b> 399 U.S. 508 </b> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> <em> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT </em> ', (int) 7 => ' <p> <em> FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND </em> ', (int) 8 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Case remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> . ', (int) 10 => ' <p> 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated and remanded. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> PER CURIAM. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> We noted probable jurisdiction [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] and set the case for oral argument with <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in <em> Williams, </em> that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in <em> Williams v. Illinois, supra. </em> ', (int) 13 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. ', (int) 14 => ' <p> <a> Page 399 U. S. 509 </a> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> ', (int) 16 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 1 </a> ] ', (int) 17 => ' <p> 397 U.S. 960. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> [ <a> Footnote 2 </a> ] ', (int) 19 => ' <p> Chapter 147 of the 1970 Law of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970). ', (int) 20 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. ', (int) 21 => ' <p> I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in <em> Williams v. Illinois, ante, </em> p. <span> <a> 399 U. S. 235 </a> </span> , and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented. ', (int) 22 => ' <p> However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in <em> Williams </em> also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. ', (int) 23 => ' <p> As I understand it, <em> Williams v. Illinois </em> does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State's interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines, as well as jail sentences, will justify imposing an "equivalent" jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State's attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But <em> Williams </em> means, at minimum, that, in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct, more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence. ', (int) 24 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 25 $i = (int) 24include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109