Snyder v. Massachusetts
- Decided
- January 8, 1934
- Docket
- 241
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,822 timesOverruled in part (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled in part, overruled on other grounds, overruled in part on other grounds, overruled, abrogated on other grounds, abrogated in part on other grounds (not yet verified) · (DP) Catlin v. Davis
What later courts said
- holding that a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights "may be lost by consent or at times even by misconduct" — State of New Jersey v. Cortney Bell (2025)
- holding that defendant had no right of presence at jury’s viewing of the crime scene because he couldn’t have gained anything from being there — United States v. Frankie Sanders (2020)
- concluding that due process clause provides defendant with right "to be present in his own person whenever his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge" — State v. Peeler (2004)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Cardozo delivered the opinion of the Court.
On April 9, 1931, James M. Kiley was shot to death at a gasoline station at Somerville, Massachusetts. Three men, Garrick, Donnellon and the petitioner Snyder, joined in the murder and in the attempted robbery that led to it. Garrick confessed to his part in the crime and became a witness for the state. Donnellon and Snyder were tried together and sentenced to be put to death. The jury found upon abundant evidence that the guilt of each had. [*103] been established béyond a reasonable doubt. At the trial and on appeal Snyder made the claim that through the refusal of the trial judge to permit him to be present at a view there had been a denial of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the conviction. 282 Mass. 401; 185. N.E. 376. A writ of certiorari brings the case here.
At the opening of the trial there was a motion by the Commonwealth that the jury be directed to view the scene of the crime. This motion was granted. In granting it the court acted under a Massachusetts statute which provides “ The court may order a view by a jury impanelled to try a criminal case.” General Laws of Massachusetts, c. 234, § 35. The court appointed counsel for Donnellon and for Snyder to represent their respective clients at the place to be viewed. Counsel for Donnellon moved that he be permitted to go thére with his client after the view, but did not ask that his client be present with the jury. The court stated that such an order would probably be made. Counsel for Snyder moved that his client be permitted to view the scene with the .jury, invoking the protection of the federal constitution. This motion was denied. The jurors were then placed in charge of bailiffs duly sworn. Accompanied by these bailiffs and also by the judge, the court stenographer, the District Attorney and the counsel for the defendants, they went forth to make their view.
Cite this
Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (1934)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.