Cramer v. United States
United States Supreme Court
325 U.S. 1 (1945)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
Anthony Cramer (defendant) was a German-born, naturalized citizen and resident of the United States. Cramer had been living in New York in 1942 when the United States (plaintiff) charged Cramer with treason for adhering to enemies of the United States and giving them care and comfort. The United States alleged that Cramer was providing support to German saboteurs Werner Thiel and Edward Kerling. In June of 1942, Thiel and Kerling landed on United States shores in enemy submarines intending to disrupt industry in the United States. Cramer claimed to have had no knowledge of the plot and claimed that he had only met with Thiel because they were close friends who had previously lived and worked together. The United States alleged that Cramer had committed overt acts when he met with Thiel and Kerling at the Twin Oaks Inn and Thompson’s Cafeteria, where they drank and engaged in conversation. This was observed by two or more agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Cramer was convicted of treason. Cramer appealed and argued that the alleged overt acts were insufficient to support a finding that he had given care and comfort to the enemy. The court of appeals upheld Cramer’s conviction. The Supreme Court granted cert.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jackson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.