| Braverman v. Bar Association of Baltimore City, 209 Md
328
U.S. v. Frankfeld, et al., was filed on 24 October 1951 as case no. 22209. Attorney Maurice Braverman was convicted on 1 April 1952 in U.S. District Court for District of Maryland of conspiring to
violate the provisions of Section 2 of the Smith Act (advocating the overthrow of the United States government by force and violence) by acting as the leader of a secret white-collar Communist association.
Fined $1,000 and sentenced to three years in prison. On 3 March 1955, the Bar Association of Baltimore filed a petition to disbar Braverman and Supreme Bench of Baltimore City heard case on 20 June
1955. 28 June 1955 Supreme Bench unanimously decided to disbar Braverman. He appealed decision and was granted leave to file a brief as amicus curiae on 7 December 1955. His case was heard and
the Court affirmed the order of the Supreme Bench with costs on 13 March 1956. Braverman's petition for certiorari filed in the Supreme Court of United States on 11 June 1956 and denied 8 October
1956.
Trial Court Records:
SPECIAL COLLECTIONS (Baltimore
City Circuit Court/Baltimore Courthouse and Law Museum Foundation Collection of papers relating to the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City) Disbarment of
Maurice Braverman, 1955, No.127 [MSA SC 5063-2-127, 00/27/14/17]
SPECIAL COLLECTIONS (Baltimore City Circuit Court/Baltimore Courthouse and Law Museum Foundation Collection of papers relating to the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City) Disbarment of
Maurice Braverman, Minutes of the Supreme Bench, Volume XVI pp. 41-42, 76-77, 92-93, Box no. 3 [MSA SC 5603-5-18, 00/47/5/16]
Appellate Court Records:
COURT OF APPEALS (Records and
Briefs) Braverman v. Bar Association, October Term 1955, No. 108 [MSA S1733-1447, 1/27/4/52]
COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions)
Braverman v. Bar Association, October Term 1955 No. 108, MdHR 15,750-5 [MSA S393-286, 1/66/6/33]
COURT OF APPEALS (Miscellaneous
Papers) Braverman v. Bar Association, October Term 1955 No. 108, MdHR 13,707-2 [MSA S397-144, 1/65/8/38]
COURT OF APPEALS (U.S. Supreme
Court Appeals) Braverman v. Bar Association, October Term 1956 No. 151, MdHR 40,332-1 [MSA S450-1, 1/66/7/35]
Subversive Activities Records:
ATTORNEY GENERAL (Subversive
Activities Files) United States v. Frankfeld, et al., 1951, no. 2209, Box no. 2 files no. 56, 79 and 107, MdHR 20,371-2 [MSA S104-1, 2/71/1/16]
1. Indictment, Forms of Under Subversive Activities: 3 copies of U.S. v. Frankfeld, et al., Indictment; Daily Record 10/24/1951 Article
2. Smith Act Trials: Newspaper records of Braverman’s case
3. Annual Reports of Special Assistant to Attorney General in Charge of Subversive Activities: 1952 Description of Baltimore ‘6’ Trial; 1954 Disbarment Procedure for suspected lawyers
ATTORNEY GENERAL (Subversive Activities Files) United States v. Frankfeld, et al., 1952, no. 22322, MdHR 20,371-5 [MSA S104-10, 2/71/1/14]
1. 12 volume transcript of U.S. v. Frankfeld, et al. Transcript 2500 pages total; scanned in 20 parts, two of which seem to be missing.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Part 11
Part 12
Part 13
Part 14
Part 15
Part 16
Part 17
Part 18
Part 19
Part 20
Baltimore City Council Un-American
Activities Committee meeting transcript
Other related material from Subversive
Activities records
Secondary Sources:
Pederson, Vernon L. The Communist Party in Maryland 1919-57. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2001. pp. 75-80 on U.S. v. Frankfeld, et al. [Accession no. L20030103, Call no. 1050 P7,
Mezzanine]
Scanned as msaref 5458-51-3509
CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL
POSTURE:
Appellant attorney challenged an order from the Supreme Bench of
Baltimore City (Maryland), which disbarred the attorney from the
practice of law.
OVERVIEW: The attorney was convicted
of conspiracy to violate § 2 of the Smith Act,
for advocating the overthrow of the United States government by force
and violence, and he was sentenced to three years imprisonment. The
Executive Committee of the Bar Association sought to initiate
disciplinary action against the attorney. The attorney argued that
the imposition of disbarment proceedings violated the prohibition
against ex post facto laws and his First Amendment right to the
freedom of speech. The trial court disbarred the attorney. The court
affirmed, holding that there was no question that a conspiracy to
violate the Smith Act was a crime involving moral turpitude. The
court further held that there was no clause in the Maryland
Constitution that prohibited retrospective laws in civil cases, and a
disbarment proceeding was not a criminal proceeding. The court noted
that the acts for which the attorney was disbarred were committed
after the enactment of the Smith Act and the Maryland disbarment
statute, Md. Ann. Code art. 10, §§ 13, 16 17 (Supp.
1955).
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the order of
disbarment.
|
