Word: sams
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1970-1979
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...SAM M. SCHNEIDER
...four weeks of hearings, the Senate committee, chaired by North Carolina's wily Sam Ervin Jr., has carefully prepared for this climactic moment. The orderly progression of witnesses has moved from the naive young Nixon organizers who seemed genuinely betrayed by the unethical behavior of their superiors to those higher officials actually involved in the lies and deceptions. The stage for Dean's testimony was most directly and dramatically set last week by Jeb Stuart Magruder, the affable, intelligent former deputy director of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President. Testifying briskly and matter-of-factly...
What of the contention that no convictions will stand because no fair jury can be empaneled? The obvious precedent is the case of Dr. Sam Sheppard, who was convicted in 1954 of murdering his wife, only to be set free twelve years later by the U.S. Supreme Court because of the "carnival atmosphere" created by the press. Justice Tom Clark nonetheless put the legal blame on the judge's "failure to protect Sheppard sufficiently from prejudicial publicity." He had not sequestered the jurors nor "proscribed extrajudicial statements by any lawyer, party, witness or court official." The defendant was convicted...
...famous defendants have, after all, been managed before. One constitutional law expert remembers, not without irony, that the perjury conviction of Alger Hiss survived despite claims that earlier congressional hearings had prejudiced the case. (Congressman Richard Nixon, of course, felt that the hearings were both necessary and nonprejudicial.) Since Sam Sheppard, defendants as celebrated as Jimmy Hoffa or Jack Ruby, whose murder of Lee Harvey Oswald was committed on television, have been convicted without any appeals court finding that the trial was unfair...
...answer questions about his actions. No sooner was the matter broached late last month than a White House spokesman angrily declared that such summons would be rejected as "constitutionally inappropriate." Perhaps, but Presidents Washington, Lincoln and Wilson all agreed to appear before Senate groups to answer questions, and Senator Sam Ervin has wondered why such answers could not be compelled-at least in the proper circumstances. "If we were engaged in a war," he said, "and some judge in, say, Guam subpoenaed the President in a crap-shooting case or something, then I can see the high court overturning...