31:
343:, yet this substantive right cannot be tested unless we grant him a stay of execution because his fines are not appealable and will be satisfied by being served in jail before he can prepare and file his petition for certiorari. Appellee's substantive right of due process is of no avail to him unless this court grants him the ancillary right whereby he may test same in the Supreme Court." The U.S. Supreme Court then granted
286:"It shall be unlawful for any person . . . , without visible means of support, or who cannot give a satisfactory account of himself, . . . to sleep, lie, loaf, or trespass in or about any premises, building, or other structure in the City of Louisville, without first having obtained the consent of the owner or controller of said premises, structure, or building; . . ."
356:
297:
Thompson then put in evidence that he was waiting for a bus to his home that was due in an hour or less, that he was a regular customer at the café, and that he was not unwelcome in the café. There was no evidence that "anyone else in the café objected to shuffling his feet in rhythm with the music
271:
As stated in the opinion of the
Supreme Court, Sam Thompson went into the Liberty End Café in Louisville on a Saturday evening. Two policemen came into the café and observed Sam "out there on the floor dancing by himself." The officers accosted Thompson and asked him what he was doing, "and he said
363:
The
Supreme Court reviewed the evidentiary record and found "no evidence whatever in the record to support these convictions." It then held that it is "a violation of due process to convict and punish a man without evidence of his guilt." The Supreme Court did not state whether the state's action
240:
The case is sometimes referred to as the "Shuffling Sam" case, because the petitioner Sam
Thompson was known locally as "Shuffling Sam." The Court noted, "There is no evidence that anyone else in the cafe objected to petitioner's shuffling his feet in rhythm with the music of the jukebox."
325:
was sought. That court, after examining the police court's judgment and transcript, granted a stay, concluding that "there appears to be merit" in the contention that "there is no evidence upon which conviction and sentence by the Police Court could be based."
403:
As explained during oral argument, Kentucky provides no appellate review of Police Court cases when the fine is less than $ 20. The fine here was $ 10, but it was one of a long series of similar fines. According to counsel for
Thompson, as stated in
372:
A commentator criticized the Court's opinion as "mak a deep incursion upon basic principles of federalism" by re-characterizing evidence of conduct that the Court deemed protected activity as "no evidence" of crime.
289:
Thompson's counsel unsuccessfully sought dismissal of the charges on the ground that a judgment of conviction on this record would deprive
Thompson of property and liberty without due process of law under the
101:
On the record in this case, Thompson's conviction for loitering and disorderly conduct was so totally devoid of evidentiary support as to be invalid under the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
624:
244:
313:
Police court fines of less than $ 20 on a single charge are not appealable or otherwise reviewable in any other
Kentucky court. Thompson's counsel therefore asked the police court to
291:
198:
563:
72:
629:
255:
418:
321:
to the U.S. Supreme Court to review the due process contentions he raised. The police court suspended judgment for 24 hours, during which time a longer stay from the
359:
Justice Hugo Black delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court that it violated due process to convict and punish
Shuffling Sam without any evidence of his guilt
339:
granted its own stay, because
Thompson "appears to have a real question as to whether he has been denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the
619:
639:
634:
280:
charge on him." That was the entire record that the prosecution put on at the trial, except for a record showing a total of 54 previous arrests.
530:
644:
364:
violated procedural or substantive due process, but it is generally considered that the Court found a violation of substantive due process.
389:
276:, and took him outside. Thompson remonstrated – he "was very argumentative – he argued with us back and forth, and so then we placed a
212:
35:
148:
511:
223:
a person of an offense when there is no evidence of his guilt. It is one of the rare instances of the
Supreme Court's granting
458:
340:
330:
234:
466:
333:
held that the Circuit Court lacked the power to grant the stay that it had granted, but the Court of Appeals
322:
160:
592:
481:
from 1943 to 1948, and later was co-author of a leading treatise on Supreme Court practice and procedure,
477:
in 1938, and later a federal court of appeals judge. Gressman was law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice
156:
567:
64:
230:
314:
376:
According to Court Listener, this case has been cited approximately 16,000 times as of July 2015.
283:
The Louisville city ordinance under which petitioner was convicted of loitering reads as follows:
277:
136:
132:
574:
474:
470:
462:
305:
The Police Court found Thompson guilty of both charges and fined him $ 10 on each charge.
583:
168:
613:
251:
405:
478:
144:
67:
435:
450:
216:
116:
335:
247:
225:
220:
124:
83:
408:, this reflected a police vendetta against Thompson for perceived uppitiness.
469:
and Eugene Gressman. Leventhal was law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justices
454:
273:
79:
385:
254:. The case was briefed and argued for Thompson by several notable former
87:
355:
299:
302:, or that his conduct was boisterous or offensive to anyone present."
229:
to review a decision of a court so insignificant (the Police Court of
601:
496:
The Supreme Court and the States: Reflections on Boynton v. Virginia
354:
317:
the judgments so that he might have an opportunity to apply for
237:
does not provide any mechanism for appeals from its judgments.
30:
294:, in that there was no evidence to support findings of guilt.
215:
in which the Court unanimously held that it is a violation of
272:
he was waiting on a bus." The officers then arrested him for
483:
Robert Stern and Eugene Gressman, Supreme Court Practice
440:, Louisville Division of Police: History & Personnel
625:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court
192:
181:
176:
105:
95:
59:
49:
42:
23:
465:from 1937 to 1938. With him on the brief were
453:argued the cause for petitioner. He had been
384:The citations in this article are written in
309:Procedural issues concerning appellate review
211:, 362 U.S. 199 (1960), was a decision of the
8:
630:United States criminal due process case law
54:Sam Thompson v. City of Louisville, et al.
20:
329:The city then sought to appeal, and the
396:
267:Arrest and proceedings in lower court
18:1960 United States Supreme Court case
7:
513:No Evidence To Support a Conviction
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
620:United States Supreme Court cases
570:199 (1960) is available from:
531:"Search Results for 362 U.S. 199"
29:
640:History of Louisville, Kentucky
635:1960 in United States case law
560:Thompson v. City of Louisville
423:High Court Backs Shufflin' Sam
208:Thompson v. City of Louisville
24:Thompson v. City of Louisville
1:
645:1960s in Louisville, Kentucky
459:United States Supreme Court
213:United States Supreme Court
661:
602:Oyez (oral argument audio)
434:362 U.S. at 202. See also
43:Argued January 11–12, 1960
331:Kentucky Court of Appeals
197:
110:
100:
28:
256:Supreme Court law clerks
368:Subsequent developments
473:from 1937 to 1938 and
392:for more information.
388:style. Please see the
360:
323:Kentucky Circuit Court
199:U.S. Const. amend. XIV
157:William J. Brennan Jr.
45:Decided March 21, 1960
494:See Louis H. Pollak,
358:
351:Opinion of the Court
341:Federal Constitution
292:Fourteenth Amendment
252:opinion of the court
231:Louisville, Kentucky
161:Charles E. Whittaker
593:Library of Congress
437:Morton O. Childress
520:1137, 1146 (1962).
419:Lewiston Daily Sun
361:
278:disorderly conduct
137:William O. Douglas
121:Associate Justices
425:(March 22, 1960).
245:Associate Justice
204:
203:
185:Black, joined by
149:John M. Harlan II
133:Felix Frankfurter
78:80 S. Ct. 624; 4
652:
606:
600:
597:
591:
588:
582:
579:
573:
546:
545:
543:
541:
527:
521:
519:
509:
503:
501:
492:
486:
484:
467:Harold Leventhal
448:
441:
438:
432:
426:
415:
409:
401:
106:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
660:
659:
655:
654:
653:
651:
650:
649:
610:
609:
604:
598:
595:
589:
586:
580:
577:
571:
555:
550:
549:
539:
537:
529:
528:
524:
517:
510:
506:
499:
493:
489:
482:
475:Stanley F. Reed
471:Harlan F. Stone
463:Harlan F. Stone
449:
445:
436:
433:
429:
416:
412:
402:
398:
382:
370:
353:
311:
269:
264:
159:
147:
135:
91:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
658:
656:
648:
647:
642:
637:
632:
627:
622:
612:
611:
608:
607:
554:
553:External links
551:
548:
547:
535:Court Listener
522:
518:U. Pa. L. Rev.
504:
487:
443:
427:
410:
395:
394:
381:
378:
369:
366:
352:
349:
310:
307:
268:
265:
263:
260:
250:delivered the
202:
201:
195:
194:
190:
189:
183:
179:
178:
174:
173:
172:
171:
169:Potter Stewart
122:
119:
114:
108:
107:
103:
102:
98:
97:
93:
92:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
657:
646:
643:
641:
638:
636:
633:
631:
628:
626:
623:
621:
618:
617:
615:
603:
594:
585:
576:
569:
565:
561:
557:
556:
552:
536:
532:
526:
523:
515:
514:
508:
505:
497:
491:
488:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
447:
444:
439:
431:
428:
424:
420:
414:
411:
407:
406:oral argument
400:
397:
393:
391:
387:
379:
377:
374:
367:
365:
357:
350:
348:
346:
342:
338:
337:
332:
327:
324:
320:
316:
308:
306:
303:
301:
295:
293:
287:
284:
281:
279:
275:
266:
261:
259:
257:
253:
249:
246:
242:
238:
236:
232:
228:
227:
222:
218:
214:
210:
209:
200:
196:
191:
188:
184:
180:
175:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
138:
134:
130:
126:
123:
120:
118:
115:
113:Chief Justice
112:
111:
109:
104:
99:
94:
89:
85:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
559:
538:. Retrieved
534:
525:
512:
507:
500:Cal. L. Rev.
495:
490:
479:Frank Murphy
446:
430:
422:
413:
399:
383:
375:
371:
362:
344:
334:
328:
318:
312:
304:
296:
288:
285:
282:
270:
243:
239:
224:
207:
206:
205:
193:Laws applied
186:
177:Case opinion
164:
152:
145:Tom C. Clark
140:
128:
71:
53:
15:
451:Louis Lusky
217:due process
117:Earl Warren
614:Categories
502:15 (1961).
380:References
345:certiorari
336:sua sponte
319:certiorari
262:Background
248:Hugo Black
226:certiorari
125:Hugo Black
84:U.S. LEXIS
82:654; 1960
455:law clerk
442:, p. 61.
390:talk page
274:loitering
235:state law
187:unanimous
86:1448; 80
80:L. Ed. 2d
60:Citations
558:Text of
540:July 18,
461:Justice
386:Bluebook
182:Majority
88:A.L.R.2d
575:Findlaw
300:jukebox
298:of the
233:) that
221:convict
96:Holding
605:
599:
596:
590:
587:
584:Justia
581:
578:
572:
516:, 110
167:
165:·
163:
155:
153:·
151:
143:
141:·
139:
131:
129:·
127:
566:
498:, 49
568:U.S.
542:2015
457:for
417:See
315:stay
90:1355
73:more
65:U.S.
63:362
564:362
219:to
68:199
616::
562:,
533:.
421:,
347:.
258:.
544:.
485:.
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.