United States v. Ballard
http://dbpedia.org/resource/United_States_v._Ballard an entity of type: Thing
United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 1943 term. The case arose from the appeal of the conviction of two leaders of the new religious "I AM" Activity movement for fraudulently seeking and collecting donations on the basis of religious claims that the defendants themselves did not believe.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
United States v. Ballard
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
United States v. Ballard, et al.
xsd:integer
2880213
xsd:integer
983688872
rdf:langString
Jackson
rdf:langString
Stone
rdf:langString
Roberts, Frankfurter
rdf:langString
Black, Reed, Murphy, Rutledge
rdf:langString
U.S. Const., Amends. I
xsd:integer
64
<second>
17280.0
xsd:integer
78
xsd:integer
322
xsd:integer
1944
rdf:langString
United States v. Ballard,
xsd:gMonthDay
--04-24
xsd:integer
1944
rdf:langString
United States v. Ballard, et al.
rdf:langString
"...[W]e do not agree that the truth or verity of respondents' religious doctrines or beliefs should have been submitted to the jury."
rdf:langString
United States v. Ballard
rdf:langString
Douglas
rdf:langString
United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 1943 term. The case arose from the appeal of the conviction of two leaders of the new religious "I AM" Activity movement for fraudulently seeking and collecting donations on the basis of religious claims that the defendants themselves did not believe. The Supreme Court held that the question of whether the defendants' claims about their religious experiences were actually true should not have been submitted to a jury. The Court arrived at this conclusion in part because the "freedom of religious belief... embraces the right to maintain theories of life and of death and of the hereafter which are rank heresy to followers of the orthodox faiths." However, the Court did not address the issue of whether the sincerity of the defendants' beliefs was a proper question for the jury. Justice Robert H. Jackson, dissenting, would have gone even farther, suggesting that the entire case should be dismissed for coming too close to being an investigation into the truth of a religious conviction. He would have held unconstitutional a jury determination of whether the defendants' religious beliefs were sincere, as well as whether they were true.
xsd:gMonthDay
--03-03
xsd:integer
6
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
9424