Cox v. Louisiana

379 U.S. 559 (1965)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D participated in a demonstration near a Louisiana courthouse. His group of 2,000 paraded and demonstrated before the courthouse. A major purpose of the demonstration was to protest what the demonstrators considered an 'illegal' arrest of 23 students the previous day. While the students had not been arraigned or their trial set for any day certain, they were charged with violation of the law, and the judges responsible for trying them and passing upon the legality of their arrest were then in the building. The demonstration was held in the vicinity of the courthouse where the students' trials would take place. The courthouse contained the judges who in normal course would be called upon to try the students' cases just as they tried appellant. The demonstration took place on the west sidewalk, the far side of the street, exactly 101 feet from the courthouse steps and, judging from the pictures in the record, approximately 125 feet from the courthouse itself. The record clearly shows that the officials present gave permission for the demonstration to take place across the street from the courthouse. D testified that they gave him permission to conduct the demonstration on the far side of the street. This testimony is not only uncontradicted but is corroborated by the State's witnesses who were present. Police Chief White testified that he told D 'he must confine' the demonstration 'to the west side of the street.' D was given permission for the assembly as long as it remained within a designated time. When Sheriff Clemmons sought to break up the demonstration, he first announced, 'now, you have been allowed to demonstrate.' The Sheriff testified that he had 'no objection' to the students 'being assembled on that side of the street.' P did not contend that permission was not granted. It was granted at least for a limited period of time, which P contends was set at seven minutes. The police did not recommend, or even suggest, that the demonstration be held further from the courthouse than it actually was. The police had prior notice that the demonstration was planned. They were prepared for it at that point and so stationed themselves and their equipment as to keep the demonstrators on the far side of the street. D was met by the Chief of Police and other officials. At this point not only was it not suggested that they hold their assembly elsewhere, or disband, but they were affirmatively told that they could hold the demonstration on the sidewalk of the far side of the street, 101 feet from the courthouse steps. This area was effectively blocked off by the police and traffic rerouted. D was advised that a demonstration at the place it was held would not be one 'near' the courthouse within the terms of the statute. D was convicted and that conviction was affirmed. D appealed. D invokes the clear and present danger doctrine in support of his argument that the statute cannot constitutionally be applied to the conduct involved here. D additionally argues that his conviction violated due process as there was no evidence of intent to obstruct justice or influence any judicial official as required by the statute.