This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 206.18.112.126 (talk) at 22:17, 13 February 2012 (→Background of the Case). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:17, 13 February 2012 by 206.18.112.126 (talk) (→Background of the Case)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)U.S. Supreme Court cases Start‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Law Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Background of the Case
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below. |
9/14/10 I am in no way a legal scholar, and in fact was only exposed to this decision today in my Law class. Still, I believe the case details on this page are inaccurate. My reading of the footnotes of the opinion has that Cohen had worn the jacket upon entering the building and then removed it when he entered the court room, allowing the police officer to take notice and speak to the judge. My reading of this article has that Cohen did not put on the coat until after he exited the court room, which creates an important distinction in his level of protest. I'm unwilling to change anything, though, as I am in no way an authority. Dontwriteplays (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- You don't need to be an expert to accurately read a SCOTUS opinion. Could you provide the relevant quote from the opinion, cited to page and footnote? postdlf (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I think Dontwriteplays has it right. The opinion first states that:
‘On April 26, 1968, the defendant was observed in the Los Angeles County Courthouse in the corridor outside of division 20 of the municipal court wearing a jacket bearing the words ‘Fuck the Draft’ which were plainly visible. There were women and children present in the corridor. The defendant was arrested. The defendant testified that he wore the jacket knowing that the words were on the jacket as a means of informing the public of the depth of his feelings against the Vietnam War and the draft.
— John Marshall Harlan, Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 16 (1971)
Footnote 3 then states:
It is illuminating to note what transpired when Cohen entered a courtroom in the building. He removed his jacket and stood with it folder over his arm. Meanwhile, a policeman sent the presiding judge a note suggesting that Cohen be held in contempt of court. The judge declined to do so and Cohen was arrested by the officer only after he emerged from the courtroom.
— John Marshall Harlan, Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 19 n. 3 (1971)
Based on all this, my understanding is that Cohen wore the jacket into the courthouse, was observed in the corridor, then removed the jacket and entered the courtroom. A police officer who had seen (or heard about) Cohen asked the judge to hold Cohen in contempt and, when that failed, arrested him when he left.
Picture
I think this article would benefit from a picture of the jacket. I have personally seen such a picture but I am having a hard time finding it online. Perhaps another editor here would be able to find it. 98.165.151.225 (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Categories: