Marder v. Massachusetts/Dissent Goldberg

925327Marder v. Massachusetts — DissentArthur Goldberg
Court Documents
Case Syllabus
Opinion of the Court
Dissenting Opinion
Goldberg

United States Supreme Court

377 U.S. 407

Marder  v.  Massachusetts


Mr. Justice GOLDBERG, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS joins, dissenting.

This appeal raises the question of whether a person charged with a traffic violation (or presumably any other criminal offense) may be forced by a statute, General Laws of Mass. c. 90, §§ 20 and 20A, to choose between foregoing a trial by pleading guilty and paying a small fine, or going to trial and thereby exposing himself to the possibility of a greater punishment if found guilty. I express no view on the merits of this question. But I would note probable jurisdiction, since the issue, in my view, presents a substantial federal question, and since I am not convinced that the generally sound advice to 'pay the two dollars' necessarily reflects a constitutionally permissible requirement.

Mr. Justice WHITE is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

Notes edit

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse