Examine individual changes

[ 0 => '{{Infobox US Supreme Court case', 1 => '| Litigants = Haupt v. United States', 2 => '| ArgueDate = November 21-22', 3 => '| ArgueYear = 1946', 4 => '| DecideDate = March 31', 5 => '| DecideYear = 1947', 6 => '| FullName = Hans Max Haupt v. United States', 7 => '| USVol = 330', 8 => '| USPage = 631', 9 => '| Prior = United States v. Haupt, 152 F.2d 771 (7th Cir. 1946)', 10 => 'United States v. Haupt, 136 F.2d 661 (7th Cir. 1943)', 11 => 'United States v. Haupt, 47 F. Supp. 836 (N.D. Ill. 1942)', 12 => 'United States v. Haupt, 47 F. Supp. 832 (N.D. Ill. 1942)', 13 => '| Holding = With conviction of the defendant under the current facts was correct, and when a legal basis for a conviction of treason is proved by two witnesses, there is nothing precluding the use of corroborative out-of-court confessions as further evidence.', 14 => '| Majority = Jackson', 15 => '| JoinMajority = Vinson, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Rutledge, Burton', 16 => '| Concurrence = Douglas', 17 => '| Dissent = Murphy', 18 => '| LawsApplied = [[Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Treason| Treason Clause]]', 19 => '}}', 20 => '', 21 => ''''Haupt v. United States''', [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 330|330]] [[United States Reports|U.S.]] 631 (1947), was a [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] case in which the Court affirmed the conviction of [[Hans Max Haupt]]—father of [[Herbert Hans Haupt]]— for treason, and that after the Constitution's [[Article Three of the United States Constitution#Section 3: Treason|Treason Clause]]'s two witness requirement is satisfied, it does not preclude the prosecution from entering out-of-court confessions into evidence. ', 22 => '', 23 => '== Historical Context ==', 24 => 'On September 4, 1942, Hans Max Haupt, along with Erna Emma Haupt, Walter Otto Froehling, Lucille Froehling, Otto Richard Wergin, and Kate Martha Wergin, were indicted by a [[grand jury]] in the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois|U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois]] for [[treason]] against the United States.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Campbell |first=William Joseph |date=October 16, 1942 |title=Opinion {{!}} United States v. Haupt, 47 F. Supp. 832 (N.D. Ill. 1942) |url=https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-haupt-3 |access-date=August 28, 2024 |website=casetext.com}}</ref> ', 25 => '', 26 => '=== District Court Decisions ===', 27 => 'The [[indictment]] against the defendants alleges that they, <blockquote>"were to carry out requests and instructions from Herbert Haupt and employ the use of false information in concealing the identity of Herbert Haupt...[and] conceal the property and funds of Herbert Haupt so that he would be able to successfully use the same, and all of these activities engaged in by the defendants were with the knowledge that they were aiding and comforting the enemies of the United States including said Herbert Haupt and the German government."', 28 => '', 29 => '"The overt acts may be briefly described as follows: Harboring and giving sustenance to the enemy; accepting money from the enemy; safeguarding and concealing money belonging to the enemy; harboring Herbert Haupt and concealing him in their respective homes; conferring, counselling and advising the enemy; giving false and misleading information which aided the enemy; permitting meetings to be held in their homes for the purpose of aiding the enemy; transporting and conveying the enemy; procuring and purchasing a vehicle of transportation for the enemy; giving money to the enemy; securing lodging for the enemy; furnishing a mailing address for the enemy; concealing the ownership of money belonging to the enemy and giving false and misleading information to the agents and officials of the United States government."<ref name=":0" /></blockquote>In an order by District Judge [[William Joseph Campbell|William J. Campbell]], he held that the indictment was in proper order and fulfilled the [[Constitution of the United States|Constitution's]] [[Article Three of the United States Constitution#Section 3: Treason|Treason Clause]], and denied the all of the defendant's [[Demurrer|demurrers]].<ref name=":0" />', 30 => '', 31 => 'On November 24, 1942, Judge Campbell found each of the defendants guilty, per the judgement of the jury.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Campbell |first=William Joseph |date=November 24, 1942 |title=Sentencing Order {{!}} United States v. Haupt, 47 F. Supp. 836 (N.D. Ill. 1942) |url=https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-haupt-4 |access-date=August 28, 2024 |website=castext.com}}</ref> He sentenced Erna Max Haupt (Hans' wife), Lucille Froehling, and Kate Martha Wergin to 25 years in prison and imposed a $10,000 fine. He sentenced Haupt, Walter Otto Froehling, and Otto Richard Wergin to death by [[electric chair]], to be carried out on January 22, 1943.<ref name=":1" /> ', 32 => '', 33 => '=== Court of Appeals Decisions ===', 34 => 'All of the convicted defendants [[Appeal|appealed]] their convictions to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit]]. The circuit court held oral arguments on issues about the indictment, certain statements from the defendants which were admitted into evidence, the court's decision to deny a motion for severance, and the [[jury instructions]] made by the court. On July 23 the court released its decision, written by Circuit Judge [[James Earl Major|James E. Major]], in which it reversed all of their convictions and ordered a second trial.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Major |first=James Earl |date=July 23, 1943 |title=Opinion {{!}} United States v. Haupt, 136 F.2d 661 (7th Cir. 1943) |url=https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-haupt-2 |access-date=August 28, 2024 |website=casetext.com}}</ref>', 35 => '', 36 => 'A new trial commenced, and Haupt was once again found guilty of treason, to which Judge [[John P. Barnes]] sentenced him to [[life imprisonment]] and imposed a $10,000 fine. Haupt appealed once more, and the circuit court released its decision on January 24, 1946. Written by Circuit Judge [[Evan Alfred Evans|Evan A. Evans]], the court affirmed Haupt's conviction.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Evans |first=Evan Alfred |date=January 24, 1946 |title=Opinion {{!}} United States v. Haupt, 152 F.2d 771 (7th Cir. 1946) |url=https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-haupt |access-date=August 28, 2024 |website=casetext.com}}</ref> Circuit Judge [[Otto Kerner Sr.]] concurred in the judgement but "but not in all that is said in the opinion", and the aforementioned Circuit Judge Major filed a dissenting opinion to both the judgement and the court's decision to deny a rehearing.<ref name=":2" /> ', 37 => '', 38 => 'Haupt then filed a petition for a [[Writ of cert|writ of certiorari]] to the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]].', 39 => '', 40 => '== Supreme Court Decision ==', 41 => 'The Supreme Court granted Haupt's petition, and held oral arguments on November 21 and 22, 1946, and released its opinion on March 31, 1947. [[Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States|Justice]] [[Robert H. Jackson]] writing for a 8-1 court, affirmed the circuit court's decision and affirmed Haupt's conviction.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Jackson |first=Robert H. |date=March 31, 1947 |title=Opinion {{!}} Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/330/631/ |access-date=August 28, 2024 |website=supreme.justia.com}}</ref> On the main issue of whether various out-of-court statements made by Haupt and his associates were admissible, the court states,<blockquote>"It is also urged that errors were made in admission of evidence. Some of this concerned conversations and occurrences long prior to the indictment which were admitted to prove intent. They consisted of statements showing sympathy with Germany and with Hitler and hostility to the United States. Such testimony is to be scrutinized with care..[b]ut, having found the legal basis for the conviction laid by the testimony of two witnesses, we find nothing in the text or policy of the Constitution to preclude using out-of-court admissions or confessions."</blockquote>Justice [[Frank Murphy]] wrote a dissenting opinion.' ]